Moderator: Elder Staff
by Jeshin » Sun Jun 07, 2015 12:15 am
by Gobbo » Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:01 am
by Icarus » Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:18 am
by Cola » Sun Jun 07, 2015 11:19 pm
by Icarus » Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:36 am
by Cola » Mon Jun 08, 2015 2:21 pm
Icarus wrote:Honestly, Cola, where are you seeing this abuse and favoratism? Are we banning folks left and right? Taking donations for personal use? Abusing players verbally? Giving boosts to our favorite special snowflakes secretly? Refusing to apologize for mistakes made?
by Icarus » Mon Jun 08, 2015 3:21 pm
by Cola » Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:22 pm
by Jeshin » Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:47 pm
by tehkory » Mon Jun 08, 2015 4:49 pm
by Cola » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:38 pm
Jeshin wrote:Minor suggestion if the above is adopted in any way shape or form. There is no need to specify rude, selfish, or other terms in the guidelines of a policy.
You describe an action or situation which violates policy. You state that it is a violation of policy. You don't need to elaborate further than that and doing so is likely to lead to a player going. I broke policy but I'm not selfish or rude! No benefit to the extra descriptive words.
by Knight26 » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:41 pm
by Cola » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:44 pm
tehkory wrote:Oi vei, Cola. There comes a point where you dislike the game/its Administrators so much that you vote with your feet and go find another game.
This wall-of-text business about injustice and etc.? Find somewhere else to play. I'm always in favor of Admins making guidelines/being transparent, but if they don't want to do it themselves, you're just wasting your and their time.
by MrT2G » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:46 pm
Knight26 wrote:Go away Cola, you smell of hate and vendetta.
by Jeshin » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:48 pm
by Cola » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:49 pm
Knight26 wrote:Go away Cola, you smell of hate and vendetta.
by Knight26 » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:51 pm
by Cola » Mon Jun 08, 2015 5:56 pm
Jeshin wrote:Last post I'll make since I don't playand I don't want to pretend even for a second to speak for the staff.
Any policy that is listed is presumed to be for the health and maintenance of the game. You can justify it without descriptors which are designed to shame or invoke a feeling of guilt in the player(s) who may be violating policy. The last thing you want is to inject emotion into a policy situation. It's a rule. It has a punishment. That's it. You don't want people getting all emotional about it.
Example: Having your character mutely drone on with some task while another player's character is attempting to interact with you is rude, selfish, and against our rules. Please don't do it.
Edited: If you fail to respond to characters or staff while performing an automated task that is a violation of policy regarding botting. We are an RPI game and interaction is a fundamental part of that experience. Please ensure that you are paying attention to the monitor while playing and respond to both characters and staff as the situation warrants, even if your response is to emote that you are ignoring the character. You must always respond to staff inquires.
by tehkory » Mon Jun 08, 2015 6:14 pm
Cola wrote:tehkory wrote:Oi vei, Cola. There comes a point where you dislike the game/its Administrators so much that you vote with your feet and go find another game.
This wall-of-text business about injustice and etc.? Find somewhere else to play. I'm always in favor of Admins making guidelines/being transparent, but if they don't want to do it themselves, you're just wasting your and their time.
That would depend on whether one sees themselves as a customer of a service who has no more say than to either "take it or leave it," or a partner in a process who deserves their say in how it functions. I see myself as a partner here at SoI. Apparently you see yourself as a customer.
I think Cola has a point that transparency benefits both the players and the staff. However, I believe transparency is most important in regards to rewards/roles/rpps rather then punishments.
by Cola » Mon Jun 08, 2015 7:10 pm
tehkory wrote:Nah. That's a strawman argument, and not a terribly good one.
tehkory wrote:See, partners can't force each other to do what they want.
by tehkory » Mon Jun 08, 2015 7:13 pm
Cola wrote:tehkory wrote:Nah. That's a strawman argument, and not a terribly good one.
Apparently you don't understand what a "strawman" argument is.tehkory wrote:See, partners can't force each other to do what they want.
Now that is an example of a strawman argument. I never contended I could force other partners to do what I want. I contended that as a partner I have a say: a right to speak my piece about an issue. To twist that into "forcing others" is the beginning of a strawman argument: twisting or recreating someone's words to say something they neither said nor intended to say, and then arguing against that false contention instead of what the person actually said, which you went on to do.
by Cola » Mon Jun 08, 2015 7:28 pm
tehkory wrote:A strawman would be where you say 'so-and-so clearly means X,' when they never said anything of the sort. For example, I don't view myself as a customer. And I've never said you intended to force anyone to do anything, simply that you can't...and once it's become clear they don't intend to, you stop posting, and move on. You're not able to do anything else. You've said your piece, and NOW it's time to move on.
And as an example of doing as I say:
*exits thread*
by Ceredir » Mon Jun 08, 2015 8:17 pm
by Cola » Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:45 am
Ceredir wrote:
Cola, while I do appreciate feedback and constructive criticism, I do not appreciate being criticized for doing volunteer work for this community especially when members of that community have asked for the work to be done. Please, stop it, or consider wording your criticism more carefully if it wasn't meant the way I am reading it.
by cfelch » Tue Jun 09, 2015 2:03 pm